I suppose Anastasiacould be a religious name she adopted later. If her baptismal name wasMaria that would seem to preclude her mother being Maria Skleraina,due to the Byzantine custom of not naming a child for one of itsparents.

The first problem is that this woman "given in marriage after a peacetreaty" "about 1046" is not "probably" a daughter of Konstantinos (d 1055), sheis only possibly his daughter. The possibility is certainly less than 50%.Having a wife or mother who was a Byzantine princess is not likely to besomething forgotten so discarded from any note.

The second problem is that the wife of Konstantinos was named "Maria" is Ibelieve not attested in any credible source. That people later, have madethis name up and stuck it on her, is probably true.

I suppose Anastasiacould be a religious name she adopted later. If her baptismal name wasMaria that would seem to preclude her mother being Maria Skleraina,due to the Byzantine custom of not naming a child for one of itsparents.

The first problem is that this woman "given in marriage after a peacetreaty" "about 1046" is not "probably" a daughter of Konstantinos (d 1055), sheis only possibly his daughter. The possibility is certainly less than 50%. Having a wife or mother who was a Byzantine princess is not likely to besomething forgotten so discarded from any note.The second problem is that the wife of Konstantinos was named "Maria" is Ibelieve not attested in any credible source. That people later, have madethis name up and stuck it on her, is probably true.

That Vsevolod married a "close relative" of Constantine seems to bebeyond doubt, as that was one of the provisions of the peacesettlement (1046) of the Rus'-Byzantine War. D. Oblensky (_Byzantiumand the Slavs_, 1994, 140) says, "Peace was restored between Byzantiumand Russia, by the terms of which Vsevolod, the son of Yaroslav ofKiev, was to marry a close relative, probably the daughter, of theEmperor Constantine IX Monomachus; the child of this marriage, thefuture prince of Kiev Vladimir Monomakh, was born in 1053." Heprovides the sources (which I have not seen) on which he bases thesestatements in an endnote (163, n.153):http://books.google.com/books?id=jv6jcwjW9WUC&pg=PA163

Sources (again, which I have not seen) cited in the Wikipedia articleon the Rus'-Byzantine War may provide more specifics on this matter:

George Vernadsky. "The Byzantine-Russian war of1043."_Sudostforschungen_12. Munich., 1953, 47-67.

Post by Christopher Ingham"Peace was restored between Byzantiumand Russia, by the terms of which Vsevolod, the son of Yaroslav ofKiev, was to marry a close relative, probably the daughter, of theEmperor Constantine IX Monomachus; the child of this marriage, thefuture prince of Kiev Vladimir Monomakh, was born in 1053."

The problem here, is not that some modern writer states "probably thedaughter", the problem is that no ancient authority said this.

And the silence on the further connection is immense. If a woman reallyhad this sort of close tie to Byzantium, I for one, would expect it to betrumpeted, not ignored.

Post by Christopher Ingham"Peace was restored between Byzantiumand Russia, by the terms of which Vsevolod, the son of Yaroslav ofKiev, was to marry a close relative, probably the daughter, of theEmperor Constantine IX Monomachus; the child of this marriage, thefuture prince of Kiev Vladimir Monomakh, was born in 1053."

The problem here, is not that some modern writer states "probably thedaughter", the problem is that no ancient authority said this.And the silence on the further connection is immense. If a woman reallyhad this sort of close tie to Byzantium, I for one, would expect it to betrumpeted, not ignored.

Well, it's more than one modern authority who states this, but thefact that the earliest attestation is a seventeenth-century source isproblematic. The name of Vsevolod' son, "Vladimir Monomakh," wouldseem to strongly imply that the connection to the Byzantine throne wasindeed very "close," although admittedly she might have been a nieceor something similar.

And who was supposed to be "trumpeting" this marriage, the presscorps? What percentage of the marriages of daughters of any onemonarch in this era are not even chronicled, much less trumpeted,especially when they involve betrothal to someone in a peripheral (=semi-civilized) region? Besides, the wife of Vsevolod, if she were thedaughter of Constantine, would have been probably by a first marriage;and he was in his third marriage, IIRC, when he ascended the throne.

Post by Christopher InghamAnd who was supposed to be "trumpeting" this marriage, the presscorps? What percentage of the marriages of daughters of any onemonarch in this era are not even chronicled, much less trumpeted,especially when they involve betrothal to someone in a peripheral (=semi-civilized) region? Besides, the wife of Vsevolod, if she were thedaughter of Constantine, would have been probably by a first marriage;and he was in his third marriage, IIRC, when he ascended the throne.

Um you have it upside down.There's Byzantium, and then there's Kiev.

That this connection is not even mentioned so directly until six hundredyears later is a pretty big red flag.

Post by Christopher InghamAnd who was supposed to be "trumpeting" this marriage, the presscorps? What percentage of the marriages of daughters of any onemonarch in this era are not even chronicled, much less trumpeted,especially when they involve betrothal to someone in a peripheral (=semi-civilized) region? Besides, the wife of Vsevolod, if she were thedaughter of Constantine, would have been probably by a first marriage;and he was in his third marriage, IIRC, when he ascended the throne.

Um you have it upside down.There's Byzantium, and then there's Kiev.That this connection is not even mentioned so directly until six hundredyears later is a pretty big red flag.

Assuming that a greater than 50% possibilty is your criterion forsomething to be probable, I would put this in the probable category,given the points I just raised, and considering the consideredopinions of scholars who are more knowledgeable than you or me onthis particular topic. Regardless, establishing that something isprobable rather than just possible is insufficient for genealogicalpurposes (for most genealogical historians, that is).

Post by Christopher InghamAssuming that a greater than 50% possibilty is your criterion forsomething to be probable, I would put this in the probable category,given the points I just raised, and considering the consideredopinions of scholars who are more knowledgeable than you or me onthis particular topic. Regardless, establishing that something isprobable rather than just possible is insufficient for genealogicalpurposes (for most genealogical historians, that is).

In all fairness, however, who was there for Vladimir Monomakh totrumpet his connections to? Konstantinos IX died when Vladimir was atoddler, having failed to establish a dynasty, and the subsequentByzantine emperors were no kin to him. It's not like he had animperial cousin ruling Constantinople to try to call in favors from.*If* his mother was Konstantinos' daughter, she was born to a firstwife who was a relative nobody, so obscure that we don't know her nameor her family.

As Mr. Ingham points out, we're still not sure of the identities ofall the imperial daughters and nieces of even later and better sourcedemperors. How many Komnenoi princesses are accounted for and we knowwho fathered them and mothered them without any doubt or controversy?It's not as if chroniclers kept a careful account of each and everyByzantine princess except for this one.

Additionally, we know that Vladimir Monomakh's 'Christian', orbaptismal name was Vasili (from his own account, in the 'Pouchenie':'I, wretched man that I am, named Vasili at my baptism by my pious andglorious grandsire Iaroslav, but commonly known by my Russian nameVladimir, and surnamed Monomakh by my beloved father and mother...').Vasili is derived from basileios, the Greek word for king or emperor,possibly in tribute to Konstantinos IX himself.

I personally think it's likely that Maria/Anastasia was KonstantinosIX's daughter, but she could've been a niece or a cousin. We don'tknow for sure yet.

As for Maria Skleraina, isn't she named in the vita of St. Lazaros ofMt. Galesion? She was a benefactor of Lazaros and donated 720nomismata to build the church of Pausolype. The monastery at Bessaiwas constructed on land granted by Konstantinos IX for therememberance of himself and Maria Skleraina.

Post by Christopher InghamAssuming that a greater than 50% possibilty is your criterion forsomething to be probable, I would put this in the probable category,given the points I just raised, and considering the consideredopinions of scholars who are more knowledgeable than you or me onthis particular topic. Regardless, establishing that something isprobable rather than just possible is insufficient for genealogicalpurposes (for most genealogical historians, that is).

Well, I was just trying to dance out of this dialogue with as neutrala remark as I could make, given that, were there a useful distinctionto be made between “probable” and “possible,” as as you seemed to beintimating in your OP, having established such a distinction wouldstill not help to make a substantive advance in what we can inferabout Vsevolod’s wife. Still, you keep insisting on having the lastword.

Post by W***@aol.comAs for me, I don't trust any authorities especially those who claim arepresentation which no ancient authority even *mentions*, let alone claims.You do.

Deferring to the authorities should be the normal course one follows,unless one is an authority himself who has a divergent opinion. Thisis more emphatically so when there is something approaching aconsensus among authorities. Their considered opinions can be provenwrong, of course, which then of course results in adjustments ofopinions.

Trying to divine your idiosyncratic understanding of a whole slew ofbasic words can be problematic in trying to maintain an intersectingdialogue. By convention, an “ancient authority” is a source predatingca. A.D. 500. So here I presume you mean “medieval” authority (orsource?), although maybe you really mean “High Medieval” (i.e.,earlier than Late Medieval); certainly not Early Modern?

The eleventh century (High Medieval)_Rus’ Primary Chronicle_(_Povest’vremennykh let_) employs the term “by the Greek Princess” (_ottsaritsě gr’ kÿne_). This and the “trumpeting” of the sobriquet“Monomakh” by Vsevolod’s son Vladimir are the primary bases for theassumptions of modern authorities that Vsevolod’s wife was probably adaughter of the emperor, who as authorities presumably have alsoconsidered other factors which we non-authorities are unaware of. Soyou needn’t remind us that the earliest source that explicitly statesthis is from the seventeenth century (Early Modern, not ancient).:-)

In the six quotations below modern authorities opine that Vsevolod’sdaughter either “was” (3), “almost certainly was” (1), or “probablywas” (2) the daughter of Constantine IX. On this basis, I have toprovisionally accept the high probability.

“Vladimir Monomakh was the son of Prince Vsevolod and of a Byzantineprincess, who was almost certainly the daughter of the ByzantineEmperor Constantine IX Monomachus” -- D. Obolensky, “Early Russianliterature, 1000-1300,” in_An introduction to Russian language andliterature_, ed. R. Auty and D. Obolensky (New York_ Cambridge Univ.Press, 1977), 72.

“Defeated by the Greeks, the Rus’ retreated, and the confrontationended with a younger son of Yaroslav marrying a Byzantine princess,probably the daughter of Constantine IX Monomachus. A son, Vladimir,born of this marriage and surnamed_Monomakh_, will play an eminentpolitical role in Kiev and, eventually, become a symbol of Byzantineimperial inheritance in Russia.” -- J. Meyendorff, _Byzantium and therise of Russia_(New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981), 6.

"Peace was restored between Byzantium and Russia, by the terms ofwhich Vsevolod, the son of Yaroslav of Kiev, was to marry a closerelative, probably the daughter, of the Emperor Constantine IXMonomachus; the child of this marriage, the future prince of KievVladimir Monomakh, was born in 1053." -- D. Obolensky,_Byzantium andthe Slavs_(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994), 140(see also endnote, 163 n.153).

“In 1043, a fleet arrived to attack Constantinople, but after it wasdefeated and burned by the Byzantine navy, Yaroslav I gratefullyaccepted the illegitimate daughter of Constantine IX Monomakhos forhis son Vsevolod, the future prince of Kiev.” – E. N. Luttwak,_Thegrand strategy of the Byzantine empire_(Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.Press, 2009), 219.

Post by W***@aol.com[repeating:] As for me, I don't trust any authorities especially those who claim arepresentation which no ancient authority even *mentions*, let alone claims.You do.That's why you're a Catholic :)

You have no idea what I am. In this regard are you suggesting thatProtestants and Orthodox Christians are different? And if perchanceyou’re referring to the historical Jesus, there are a number of“mentions” of him in the authentically “ancient” extra-biblicalsources.Christopher Ingham

Post by W***@aol.comWe do know, that there was a person writing, at the time, and in the courtof Konstantine, who did not mention any children at all.It's fine to say something is *possible* it's quite another creature to sayit's probable.It's actually not probable. That's the point.All the hand waving in the world, can't turn a possibility into aprobability just on the point that's its possible. That's just nonsense.

But it seems you’re doing the handwaving here. As I just demonstrated,a preponderance of medieval historians consider the word “princess” ina contemporary Russian chronicle and the conspicuous advertising ofthe Monomachus name by Vsevolod’s descendants to to be salient enoughfactors to conclude that there is a significant probablity. I guessI’ll just regard that because they have inexplicably ignored Will’s“rule” that something must be mentioned by Psellus in order for it tohave existed or occurred in the mid-eleventh-century Byzantine court.

Defer to an authority?What? What newsgroup are you a member of that you would suggest that weshould defer to anyone whatsoever?

This is so utterly at odds with everything I believe it's hard to evenrespond evenly.

I defer to no one. No one. No one at all. Jesus himself could appear andtell me I'm wrong, and I would say "How do you know?"

Now that we moved on from that point, let's address an actual authority,instead of these "I just happened to have this book lying around" fakeWikipoopian "authorities" who are not so.

John Julius Norwich who wrote the definitive history of Byzantium, thinksthis arrangement was of such little account, that he doesn't even mention it.That's pretty startling, considering what dynastic meaning could be readinto the Emperor's joining his "daughter" to Rus.

I find the complete lack in Psellus, an "ancient" (I don't care about yourdefinition mister piggie toes) authority to be startling. Alarming. Anddefinitive.

It's clear to me, that the Byzantine's did not see this link as anything atall.

I don't care what five thousand authors in the last hundred years thoughtor didn't think about it. By the way, the Monomachus family was an ancientone, there is no need for a "Princess" or whatever the russians thought shewas (which apparently no one else did) to be a daughter at all. She could bea sisters daughter or even a first cousin or similar. I'm sure he wasn'tthe first Emperor to marry off the extras in his court to satisfy a barbarianwarlord.

Post by Christopher InghamBut it seems you’re doing the handwaving here. As I just demonstrated,a preponderance of medieval historians consider the word “princess” ina contemporary Russian chronicle and the conspicuous advertising ofthe Monomachus name by Vsevolod’s descendants to to be salient enoughfactors to conclude that there is a significant probablity. I guessI’ll just regard that because they have inexplicably ignored Will’s“rule” that something must be mentioned by Psellus in order for it tohave existed or occurred in the mid-eleventh-century Byzantine court.

No it's you.You demonstrated that a few picked modern people who claim to be, or whosomeone has claimed to be "medieval historians" (of which fact we are notcognizant), consider, without regard to a word "Princess" or "kinswoman", thatthis woman, which is not referred to in any "contemporary" Russian chronicleat all, was a daughter of the Emperor.

That's hardly probative is it? Monomachus as I've said, applies to manypeople, as the family was ancient. That the Emperor might have had a niece orcousin who also was of this family is hardly a surprise, he probably hadmany such. What does "a significant probability" even mean, by the way?

I never made a "rule" that something had to be mentioned by Psellus. Thata particular connection is not mentioned, by a Byzantine source... at all.Any source... whatsoever, ever.. zero. Is pretty significant to my mind.That a Rus source might create a higher significance than an event actuallydeserved is eminently logical.

You have demonstrated not at all that "a preponderance" as opposed to a"gaggle" of anyone has declared anything.The first step in this would be to create a platform upon which we canarray the modern historians who speak with authority of this period.Wikipedia is not the tool to use in such an argument. Having lived in it,for seven years, I think I can speak to that point.Wikipedia, in the vast majority of cases, presents a set of picked sources,without regard to authority, but only to citability.

Post by W***@aol.comconsider, without regard to a word "Princess" or "kinswoman", thatthis woman, which is not referred to in any "contemporary" Russianchronicleat all, was a daughter of the Emperor.

Just to point this nail a little more. The Primary Chronicle was first puttogether, in some fashion, about 70 years after this arranged marriage issupposed to have taken place. We do not have that version, we have a fewversion many *centuries* later, which have been edited. We cannot tell howmuch or how they've been edited.

To my mind, that's not a contemporary document at all. Not even the firstversion.

Post by W***@aol.comconsider, without regard to a word "Princess" or "kinswoman", thatthis woman, which is not referred to in any "contemporary" Russianchronicleat all, was a daughter of the Emperor.

Just to point this nail a little more. The Primary Chronicle was first puttogether, in some fashion, about 70 years after this arranged marriage issupposed to have taken place. We do not have that version, we have a fewversion many *centuries* later, which have been edited. We cannot tell howmuch or how they've been edited.To my mind, that's not a contemporary document at all. Not even the firstversion.

Post by W***@aol.comconsider, without regard to a word "Princess" or "kinswoman", thatthis woman, which is not referred to in any "contemporary" Russianchronicleat all, was a daughter of the Emperor.

Just to point this nail a little more. The Primary Chronicle was first puttogether, in some fashion, about 70 years after this arranged marriage issupposed to have taken place. We do not have that version, we have a fewversion many *centuries* later, which have been edited. We cannot tell howmuch or how they've been edited.To my mind, that's not a contemporary document at all. Not even the firstversion.

Post by Peter StewartI'm not sure what point you are trying to make by dredging yup an oldthread, since the link you have provided is to a page of ChristianRaffersperger's book that is not viewable to most readers.Anyone wanting to find out what the author thinks about the mother ofhttp://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=monomakhinaPeter Stewart

Thanks for the link, Peter. At a quick glance, it looks like is quite well researched. Needless to say, I haven't had any time to go in deep with it...other projects are holding me back but this is one area (among so many others...) I just happen to really love.

Post by Peter StewartI'm not sure what point you are trying to make by dredging yup an oldthread, since the link you have provided is to a page of ChristianRaffersperger's book that is not viewable to most readers.Anyone wanting to find out what the author thinks about the mother ofhttp://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=monomakhinaPeter Stewart

Thanks for the link, Peter. At a quick glance, it looks like is quite well researched. Needless to say, I haven't had any time to go in deep with it...other projects are holding me back but this is one area (among so many others...) I just happen to really love.

The usual caution applies - for instance, on the page for VladimirMonomakh himself(http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=vladimir3) he isshown as marrying his second wife in 1108. She was the mother of YuriDolgoruki, who is shown on his own page(http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=iurii) as marryingfor the first time in 1107. A pre-natal prodigy...

If you follow the link to Vladimir's first wife, Harold Godwinson'sdaughter Gyda(http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=gyda), you canfind where this problem arises - she is mistakenly identified as thewife who, according to the primary chronicle, died on 7 May 1107.However, we know that this was actually the second wife, Yuri's mother -Vladimir's "pouchenie" (instruction), evidently written shortly beforehe died in 1125 and inserted in the chronicle under 1096, tells us thatYuri's mother died after Easter in 1107, before he took a Polovstiangirl as wife for Yuri after the following Christmas (in the chronicle on12 January 1107 March style, 1108 new style).

We know from the necrology of St Pantaleon abbey at Cologne that Gydadied on a 10 March, that was before any possible date for Easter. Theyear of her death is unknown - it may have been after 1107, if she wasrepudiated as Vladimir Kuchkin plausibly suggested in 1999.

Post by Peter StewartI'm not sure what point you are trying to make by dredging yup an oldthread, since the link you have provided is to a page of ChristianRaffersperger's book that is not viewable to most readers.Anyone wanting to find out what the author thinks about the mother ofhttp://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=monomakhinaPeter Stewart

Thanks for the link, Peter. At a quick glance, it looks like is quite well researched. Needless to say, I haven't had any time to go in deep with it...other projects are holding me back but this is one area (among so many others...) I just happen to really love.

The usual caution applies - for instance, on the page for VladimirMonomakh himself(http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=vladimir3) he isshown as marrying his second wife in 1108. She was the mother of YuriDolgoruki, who is shown on his own page(http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=iurii) as marryingfor the first time in 1107. A pre-natal prodigy...If you follow the link to Vladimir's first wife, Harold Godwinson'sdaughter Gyda(http://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=gyda), you canfind where this problem arises - she is mistakenly identified as thewife who, according to the primary chronicle, died on 7 May 1107.However, we know that this was actually the second wife, Yuri's mother -Vladimir's "pouchenie" (instruction), evidently written shortly beforehe died in 1125 and inserted in the chronicle under 1096, tells us thatYuri's mother died after Easter in 1107, before he took a Polovstiangirl as wife for Yuri after the following Christmas (in the chronicle on12 January 1107 March style, 1108 new style).We know from the necrology of St Pantaleon abbey at Cologne that Gydadied on a 10 March, that was before any possible date for Easter. Theyear of her death is unknown - it may have been after 1107, if she wasrepudiated as Vladimir Kuchkin plausibly suggested in 1999.Peter Stewart

Thanks for the caveat and information. I only saved the link for perusing later...who knows when!Cheers!

Post by W***@aol.comconsider, without regard to a word "Princess" or "kinswoman", thatthis woman, which is not referred to in any "contemporary" Russianchronicleat all, was a daughter of the Emperor.

Just to point this nail a little more. The Primary Chronicle was first puttogether, in some fashion, about 70 years after this arranged marriage issupposed to have taken place. We do not have that version, we have a fewversion many *centuries* later, which have been edited. We cannot tell howmuch or how they've been edited.To my mind, that's not a contemporary document at all. Not even the firstversion.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by dredging yup an oldthread, since the link you have provided is to a page of ChristianRaffersperger's book that is not viewable to most readers.Anyone wanting to find out what the author thinks about the mother ofhttp://genealogy.obdurodon.org/findPerson.php?person=monomakhina

Anyone wanting to see the entry identifying Vladimir's mother as a Greekimperial daughter (o[t] tsaritse gr'kyne) under AD 1053 (AM 6561) in theLaurentian manuscript of the Russian primary chronicle (St Petersburg,National Library of Russia, F.p.IV.2, fol. 54v) can view it here (line13 in the left column):